INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Angel Garden and Steve Paris

Message
Author
Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8957
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#61 Postby Maria Mac » November 7th, 2013, 11:50 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Now, as someone who's invested a large part of my life in helping victims, I was as pleased to see there is a campaign to "challenge institutional disbelief around domestic & sexual violence and abuse" as I was appalled to see a contribution from Angel Garden on the campaign's website. That Angel should think her experiences, namely, being barred from a few blogs, a couple of friends suddenly withdrawing their friendship and being challenged by me and a few others because of their online behaviour, belong in the same category as being raped and beaten, beggars belief. She can go no lower, IMO, and my anger about it could lift a bus.

I contacted the website to ask why they'd published the piece, given that it says nothing whatever about either domestic or sexual abuse. I was told,

"Regardless of its content, if comments do not contain abusive language, they are published," and "If you would like to have your say wholly anon, I am happy to publish a comment anonymously."

I chose not to comment as I knew it wouldn't help matters. The only redeeming feature of the Angel's piece is that - unlike the dozens of articles on her own websites - it doesn't contain the real names of her victims because the website won't allow it.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8957
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#62 Postby Maria Mac » November 7th, 2013, 12:05 pm

Finally, as the "humanist person" mentioned in Angel's piece, I'll correct the falsehoods in it about me here.

Angel writes:
"she has created a targeting blog post in which she selectively provides ‘evidence’ in the form of our vigorous response to the censorship and mobbings, without showing any context, to prove that we are simply personally “harrassing” and “stalking” skeptics, whilst hiding the actual issues. My husband initially tried to comment on her post but when he tried to provide the actual facts of how the situation came about (apart from us just being …”insert insult”…) his comment was “edited”, and his commenting privileges rescinded."

Nonsense. To date, I haven't written about her on my blog (http://www.skepticat.org/) - just here on the forum of my website, which is an active forum with many participants, some of whom have more posts here than I do. Anyone is free to join this forum and participate in the conversations here provided they follow a few simple rules designed to help productive discussion. I started this thread criticising Angel and her husband for their bullying behaviour. Angel could have availed herself of the opportunity to engage with me here but chose not to. Her husband did, however, and he posted extensively before he was banned.

As for why he was banned: one thing I made clear to him was that he was not to use the forum as yet another platform to repeat the same attacks that Angel had made on her own website - this meant no using real names. This is hardly an unreasonable rule - as I've already said, Angel's piece on the campaign website contained no names and it wouldn't have been published if it had.

But he ignored the instruction, posted names and was banned as a result. (The option is still open for Angel to join and engage with me, with the same caveat.)

One of the things they keep doing on Twitter and elsewhere is go on and on about how we can't really be humanists or skeptics because we side with their victims rather than them. They keep stating the evidence is on their side but, when challenged, they produce none, whereas, as I keep pointing out, the evidence that they are harassing and defaming others is in the public domain for all to see.

Anyway, to repeat what I said earlier in this thread:

>>You know that the people you have written and/or made videos about have not given their permission to be publicly attacked in that way. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you care about nobody's feelings except your own.

The question this raises for me as a humanist is what to do about behaviour which, although it does not involve me personally, I consider to be unjustified and hurtful against others. Should I ignore it and let it continue unabated or should I challenge it? If there is the remotest possibility that challenging it will make a difference for the better then, as a humanist, that is what I am going to do. The next question is how do I do this when you don't allow comments beneath the articles concerned and when you ban me from commenting on your youtube channel?

Do you have a better idea than posting on a forum, which allows you and anyone else who is interested to respond publicly?

No, I am satisfied that what I have said here is entirely justified and in keeping with a humanist world view. To repeat what I said in an earlier post, there is a moral obligation on humanists to stand up to and challenge the behaviour of nasty bullies. As long as your articles and videos attacking other individuals remain in the public domain, so will this thread.<<

Over and out.

alicia h
Posts: 4
Joined: May 21st, 2013, 10:42 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#63 Postby alicia h » November 7th, 2013, 3:29 pm

Many thanks, Athena, for standing up to the harrassment and -- most of all -- the never-ending flood of outright nonsense.

As I am mentioned in that recent document (which that organisation, if it is serious, should be ashamed for having published), I thought I'd say a few words.

One Swedish ‘critic’ is very proud to have said that she hoped we failed in our initiative and she thought the person who expelled our children did a good thing.


'Very proud' are perhaps the wrong two words, but I certainly still stand by what I said earlier as I think they're referring to this comment: https://zooey.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/ ... ment-12880.

Tomorrow is exactly two years since I wrote it. Two years! If I had any doubts back then that the school expelled the family because of the behaviour of the parents,* I certainly have no doubts today. Note that I said the school handled the situation quite elegantly, not that I 'thought the person who expelled [their] children did a good thing.' The end-result, of course, is the same thing. But I recognize there was nothing else the school could have done. After all, the children were not ultimately the school's responsibility (neither are they mine), and at the same time the school has obligations towards many other families. It may be a Steiner school, yes, but neither Steiner nor anthroposophy is the issue here, which is one reason the entire story is of no interest to me. (*This is what the school has said, and which I fully believe.)

Now I shall resume ignoring all the crap.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8957
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#64 Postby Maria Mac » November 7th, 2013, 4:35 pm

Thanks, Alicia.

alicia h wrote: Note that I said the school handled the situation quite elegantly, not that I 'thought the person who expelled [their] children did a good thing.'

It is their unashamed mendacity that is one of the fundamental problems they have in being taken seriously. Thankfully, most people are not so stupid as to be taken in by it (though a few apparently are).

alicia h
Posts: 4
Joined: May 21st, 2013, 10:42 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#65 Postby alicia h » November 7th, 2013, 4:57 pm

Athena wrote:It is their unashamed mendacity that is one of the fundamental problems they have in being taken seriously.


Absolutely.

(I realized, in retrospect, that my 'most of all' in the first passage of my previous comment sounds rather weird. I was thinking about quantity. Even if there's lots of harrassment, the flood of nonsense is even more colossal... Of course, I do find relief in knowing that most people would be not be able to follow their rants without experiencing an acute sense of drowning.)

Melanie Byng
Posts: 15
Joined: November 8th, 2013, 1:09 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#66 Postby Melanie Byng » November 8th, 2013, 1:57 pm

I wanted to thank Maria for tackling this head on. It's two and a half years since our encounter with these people and it seems there will be no end to their harassment and insinuations. We don't intend to enter into a discussion, it wouldn't serve any purpose. They will just have to carry on attacking us until they get bored or find another target.

But thank you.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8957
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#67 Postby Maria Mac » November 8th, 2013, 9:52 pm

Thanks for that, Melanie.

Realistically, if they were going to get bored, it would have happened already. They appear to be addicted to conflict and it is frankly impossible to imagine them ever being able to rise above even the smallest slight as you and your husband have risen above their horrendous persecution of you. They will always be trying to hurt someone in their desperate quest for attention (and, I suspect, money). :sad:

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8957
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#68 Postby Maria Mac » December 13th, 2013, 10:47 am

I've started a new thread about them here.


Return to “"Whistleblowing" internet bullies especially Angel Garden (aka AmazonNewsMedia) and Steve Paris”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest